🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Donn Terry <donn@hpfcrn.hp.com>

The "trial use" standard was broadly misunderstood.

According to IEEE rules, it is a full standard, just with a short lifetime
before revision must occur.  The general perception was that it was some
sort of "lesser" or "not yet done" standard (Draft Proposed in ISO 
parlance has the right feel to it.)

Was it a success: yes and no.

As a means to get the right people involved and to have the industry understand
that POSIX was serious work, it was excellent.

As a standard that was (itself) well accepted, it wasn't so good.

I believe that it got us to a pretty reasonable final (full use) standard,
and that had the trial use not occurred the final standard wouldn't have been
as good.

I also feel that "trial use" would be a bad idea now for any POSIX standards,
as now that the visibility and participation levels are high, that another
trial use would only introduce confusion.

It depends on who you are talking to whather POSIX is too fast or too slow.
It's too fast for many vested interests who for whatever reasons don't see
value in having the standards (either "now" or "later").  I get the impression
that many of the "standards stifle innovation" believers are in this camp
as well.  (I won't get into a rebuttal of that issue, but I in fact believe
the contrary; standards move innovation ot useful places.)

For those who see a value in having them quickly, the standards process
is frustratingly slow.  (Yesterday is too late for some interests.)

Getting the two camps into the same room is entertaining...

Donn Terry
Chair 1003.1

This comment represents personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect
the position of either IEEE or my employer.

Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 110